House of Lords Reform and the Need to Break from the Past

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

House of Lords Reform and the Need to Break from the Past
What They Have Said
For Your Reference:
Lords Reform Report: Conclusions and Recommendations

International News:
Echoes of the São Paulo Forum

A joint committee of MPs and peers on December 11 set out a blueprint for House of Lords reform. Former cabinet minister Jack Cunningham unveiled the plans for the second stage of parliament's constitutional reform in a report outlining five options: a 100 per cent elected Lords; 80 per cent elected; 60 per cent elected; 50 per cent elected; 20 per cent elected (the government's preference) and a completely appointed chamber. The committee is urging leaders of both the Lords and the Commons to give MPs and peers a free vote on the seven options – possibly as early as January, though senior figures in the Lords have tipped "next spring" as a likelier date.

The MP and peer hailed "virtual unanimity" on the committee over the role and function of the Lords – particularly its subordinate relationship to the Commons. But the committee, it is reported, found it more difficult to strike a deal on the future make-up of the second chamber.

Jack Cunningham told journalists that MPs and peers started to get a "little grumpy" on the issue. When it came to setting the reform options "fault lines opened strong and wide", he said.

It is reported that many MPs believe that the majority of the second chamber should be elected and could, therefore, back six in 10 peers being elected. Peers appear set to reject any substantial change and could back the status quo.

Jack Cunningham said that the joint committee could help negotiate between the two chambers in the event of a polarised parliament. "If the committee is asked to reconvene to define the balance point we shall have to do our best," he said. "Members of the committee were prepared to compromise on some very controversial issues to allow parliament to decide," he said.

Following free votes in the Commons and the Lords – and any arbitration through the committee – ministers will then be charged with the task of putting a final proposal to both houses.

Insiders are predicting that the government is willing to compromise by putting forward a final plan which would see half of all peers elected – option seven in the joint committee's report.

"The exact half-way House may have some appeal on grounds of mathematical neatness. It would provide an apparently sufficient balance of electoral legitimacy on the one hand and of independence and expertise from appointment on the other," states the report.

Reports suggest that a blueprint could be ready by next autumn, including a retirement package to clear the way for new elected members. A package of reforms would then be ready for legislation in the 2003/2004 session – allowing elected members into the Lords for the next general election. Until then an "agreed moratorium" on new appointments to the peerage will stay in place.

What the joint committee has not addressed is the role, function or powers of a reformed "House of Lords", or second chamber. Though dwelling on the "desirable qualities" of new non-party political forms of patronage, the committee says that any change should "preserve by and large" the virtues of the existing second chamber.

"The existing House of Lords meets several of the criteria which we have been considering, namely lack of domination by one party, independence and expertise," the committee concluded.

"If these existing qualities, bolstered by a greater representativeness, can be transferred to the reformed House, we believe that a new legitimacy, which we have already highlighted in considering the House's role, will naturally develop."

Thus the committee it suggesting that its proposals aim to build: legitimacy; representativeness; no domination by any one party; independence and expertise.

First of all, to tackle the issue of legitimacy, why should it not be the case that a second chamber should be 100 percent elected? Any power which is not democratically established by a direct universal franchise cannot fulfil the democratic demand that no part of government should carry out its rule by appointment. Not to address the issue of absolutism which runs through the whole conception of parliamentary sovereignty is to bog down the whole enterprise in the conceptions of the past. It is this conception in this day and age, and not primarily the composition of the "House of Lords", which is the block to the people exercising their political sovereignty.

But to suggest that the function of the second chamber should not be questioned is also to fundamentally shirk the issue of the need to break with the past. Furthermore, the report does not even appear to be conscious of the need to raise whether this is an institution for Britain and if so why. The thrust of the government’s constitutional reforms is to downgrade Scotland and Wales as "regions" on a par with, for example, the North-East of England. It is not even broached that England is country in its own right, alongside Scotland and Wales. Thus the possibility of a second chamber as a chamber of the representatives of the three nations does not occur to it. This is not to suggest that this is the way forward for a "House of Lords", but to raise that the old prejudices are at work, and that this is evident in the lack of consideration given to the function of such a chamber.

The issue is: if democracy, government by, of and for the people, exists then what is the role of a second chamber? As indicated above, a chamber of nationalities is one requirement which was in place, for example, in the Soviet Union. The second chamber in the United States and in Germany reflects that these countries are federal states and deputies are elected from each of the federated member states. But what of a second Westminster chamber?

The committee on reform of the House of Lords raises relevant questions about representativeness, party domination, independence and expertise, but does not address why a second chamber is necessary if the first chamber had legitimacy in reflecting the will of the electorate. So one conclusion is that the legitimacy of the House of Commons is indeed a crucial issue. The crisis of legitimacy of this body rests firstly in the fact that its legal sovereignty is based on the absolutism of the "monarch-in-parliament". That is, that in this system of "representative democracy", sovereignty is defined not by the will of the people as expressed through its representatives, nor even by a constitution which embodies this will, but in the supreme legislative authority of the House of Commons itself. Secondly, it is the executive which has evolved as supreme, as not being subordinate to the legislature, the Commons as a body, so that the dominant party exercises its power, and the legislative programme is decided on exclusively by the Cabinet of the party in power.

In short, the people are excluded from self-governance at every level, and are many times removed from having authority over parliamentary legislation. In this situation, the fundamental reform called for in a complete break with the past is not primarily the replacement of hereditary and other peers with differently composed "House of Lords". It is rather the democratic renewal of the political system which has a second chamber solely as part of the "checks and balances" that are supposedly required in order to moderate the power of the first chamber. This is a chamber which embodies the party system of government which keeps the electorate on the margins of political life.

It is just that elites should be deprived of positions of political power and privilege, but the reform which is demanded by the people in a democracy is not that these positions of privilege should be taken from one elite to be handed to others, but that sovereignty should be finally vested in the people. Indeed, the privileged elite in government increasingly views the whole system of "checks and balances" as anti-democratic because it goes against the "will of the Commons". Because this "will of the Commons" is increasingly at odds with the will of the legislature, still less with the will of the people, such a position by the executive is itself essentially anti-democratic.

The reform which is required is that which recognises the right of the people to govern themselves, to elect and be elected, and in which such a right is turned into concrete reality. This is the reform which the working class and people must fight for. They must oppose the government’s constitutional "reforms" which are designed to put in place arrangements which further marginalise the role of the working people as concerns decision-making.

Jack Cunningham, the former minister who chaired the joint committee, noted that the "fiercest differences were between members of the same party".

Lord Irvine's original plans for a predominantly appointed Lords triggered widespread unease on Labour's backbenches and reportedly split the cabinet.

Robin Cook and other Labour leaders threw their weight behind a greater elected element to a reformed Lords. Other "old Labour" MPs are defending the Labour Party’s historical abolitionist stance for the Lords – regardless of its composition.

The Conservative frontbench has officially backed an 80 per cent elected "senate".

Tory leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, warned that "new Labour must not be allowed to weaken the Lords, as it has the Commons". "We need a stronger parliament," he said. "It is because we want to see a stronger House of Lords, able to use all its existing powers and with greater democratic legitimacy to hold the executive to account, that we have proposed a smaller, largely directly-elected Senate."

Former Conservative chancellor and leadership contender, Ken Clarke said, "I personally favour an all elected upper House." He said, "I don't expect that we are quite ready for that because I don't believe the two houses will vote for that. But we can have a go. I think we need a more powerful and effective upper chamber and it requires above all else, the legitimacy that comes from being elected. I would like to see us go for the most generous option in terms of elected members.''

Kenneth Clarke compared opponents to a democratic second chamber to those who tried to block the 1832 Reform Act – which extended the franchise for the Commons. "I have never been able to understand why a country that likes to describe itself as the oldest democracy in the world is not able to contemplate a democratically-elected upper House," he said. "I find reservations against that somewhat old-fashioned and at times some of the more vivid arguments in favour of -independence, freedom from party, expertise, the kind of people who wouldn't stand for election – terribly reminiscent of the arguments against the 1832 Reform Bill."

Another former Tory chancellor, and joint committee member, Lord Howe, disputes the idea that only democracy can confirm true legitimacy to the House of Lords. "But why? How far, if at all, would elections improve the quality or authority, performance or acceptability of the second chamber?" he asked. "This is the thinking which has consolidated my lack of enthusiasm for the admission of elected members to the second chamber. To be honest, I have become increasingly dismayed by the prospect."

Tory traditionalists are campaigning to reverse the move towards an elected, in part or in total, second chamber.

Lord Norton of Louth and Staffordshire MP Sir Patrick Cormack have won cross-party backing from over 100 MPs for an appointed Lords. "We are not opposed to change but we do not believe that change should take the form of an elected House," they argue. "The existing second chamber adds value to the political process and we do not believe that an elected second chamber would do so."

The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Lords reform agenda.

In the Commons, Paul Tyler suggested that "the dire warnings of the opponents of Lords reform have been exposed as groundless". He said, "Liberal Democrats welcome the joint committee report and the positive future role it sets out for the second chamber. [It] demonstrates that the second chamber can be made both legitimate and accountable, whilst remaining free from political control freakery."

But he cautioned that "decision time" has yet to come. "With the right electoral system, the [Lords] can work effectively alongside the Commons in holding the government to account and scrutinising its legislation. Decision time will come when the two Houses vote in January. But at least now we have disposed of the myth that the Lords is incapable of playing a key role in a 21st Century parliamentary democracy."

In the Lords, Lib Dem frontbench peer, Lord Goodhart welcomed moves that would combine election with patronage. "The report opens the way for a reformed House of Lords which will play a greater role in the governance of our country," he said. "By building on our existing strengths, and adding the greater legitimacy which elected members can give us, the Lords will become the Second Chamber which Britain needs."

Accepting calls for the remaining 92 hereditary Lords to be scrapped, the joint committee reassured life peers that there would be no compulsory redundancies.

"It would be difficult to devise a fair and workable means of removing existing members, who have been led to believe that their membership will be allowed to continue, and many of whom have planned their lives around a long-term commitment to membership," found the committee. "In the second stage of our inquiry we shall consider possible means of encouraging voluntary retirement and smoothing the transition. At this stage we have concluded only that we are not attracted by the idea of compulsory retirement for existing life peers."

Other implications of a largely elected Lords are the "significant financial consequences" of democracy, Cunningham warned reformers. The committee's report observes that the cost of an MP runs to some £380,000 a year, compared to just £85,000 for a peer. "A reformed House could cost substantially more, mainly because of the need for better support and facilities for members," conclude the MPs and peers.

A new appointments committee for a reformed Lords should, the committee argues, be put on a statutory footing. But the MPs and peers of the committee said that powers of patronage must remain with the Prime Minister to allow a government to appoint ministers to the Lords. New members of a reformed second house should serve a 12-year term, the committee argued.

The joint committee on House of Lords reform's conclusions and recommendations in full:

The existing conventions, which are of a self-restraining nature, impact profoundly on the relations between the Houses and need to be understood as a vital part of any future constitutional settlement.

We strongly support the continuation of the existing conventions. When the views of the Houses on composition are made known, we will return to the detailed matter of how these important conventions should be maintained in a new constitutional settlement between the Houses.

We intend to return to the matter of the constitutional role of the Lords in the later stages of our work but we underline its importance here.

We concur with the conclusions of the Royal Commission that increased representativeness will confer a new legitimacy on the House of Lords. We will consider methods to achieve that end when we deal with getting the right membership of the House later in this report but it is also a matter that will need further careful attention in future.

We are convinced that a reformed House should contain an appropriate number of members from all parts of the country and later in this report we will consider how this might be achieved. It is difficult to see at the moment structures which are parallel to those to be found in fully federal countries like the USA and Germany upon which to base this representation, although we note in the recent Queen's Speech the Government's intention to hold referendums on the issue of regional governance in England.

We consider that a co-ordination of the legislative loads between the Houses is a practical but important part of any new constitutional settlement.

Recognising the practical realities of parliamentary programmes, we nevertheless consider that pre-legislative scrutiny is an important aspect of making the legislature function more effectively and we welcome the proposals announced in the recent Queen's Speech.

When the Houses' views on the matter of composition are known, we shall consider whether any change is needed in the powers of the Lords in relation to secondary legislation.

We assert the importance of the scrutiny function of the House. At a later stage in our work, we will return to consider how that scrutiny can be made more effective.

Although we may return to it later in our deliberations, we consider the judicial function of the House of Lords to be a matter worthy of independent inquiry and expert attention. Even if a separation takes place it does not need to entail the ending of membership of the House by the law lords.

Subject to satisfactory assurances that carry-over arrangements could not be used to erode the powers of the House of Lords, we do not consider at this stage that the provisions of the Parliament Acts need to be altered. Together with our conclusions about maintaining the existing conventions, we therefore recommend (subject to what we say about secondary legislation in recommendation viii above) that no new or additional powers are given to the House of Lords at this stage.

We consider that the lack of representativeness of the House must be improved and that better balances can be achieved either by a new appointment system or, with appropriate checks in place, by various methods of election.

Any arrangements for the reformed House must take account of the importance of maintaining the principle that no one political party should be able to be dominant in it.

It is our view that any new system of getting members into the House needs to ensure that independence, whether arising from non-party affiliation or from less attention to the requests of the Whips, is not jeopardised or diminished.

We consider this independence an important element in any reconstituted House.

We consider the expertise which is evident in the existing House to be something of considerable importance which we would wish to see preserved in the new House.

The existing House of Lords meets several of the criteria which we have been considering, namely lack of domination by one party, independence and expertise. If these existing qualities, bolstered by a greater representativeness, can be transferred to the reformed House, we believe that a new legitimacy, which we have already highlighted in considering the House's role, will naturally develop.

At this stage we propose simply that the House should comprise about six hundred members. This represents little change from the present House without the 92 hereditary peers, but we recognise that transitional arrangements may necessitate an increase in size before equilibrium is reached.

A balance has to be struck, and our view is that a tenure for all members of some twelve years is about right. While members should be able to resign their seats earlier, we consider that members who do so should not thereby be able to stand for election to the House of Commons at least for a certain period, perhaps three years.

The present arrangements do not, in our view, achieve the balance which we consider necessary and legitimate. There should be a new Appointments Commission established on a statutory basis, as the Royal Commission originally proposed. However, that should not exclude the possibility of nomination by the Prime Minister of the day, nor proposals by party leaders and members of the public. All these nominations would be scrutinised by the new Appointments Commission. Only the Prime Minister would have the right to have nominations confirmed.

At this stage we have concluded only that we are not attracted by the idea of compulsory retirement for existing life peers.

We consider it essential that some detailed work should be done on costing the options before the Houses.

We hope that there will first be "take-note" debates on this report in both Houses, with the opportunity to vote on the options coming later, after members have had time to study both debates. We are convinced that it is essential that both Houses follow the same procedure in voting on options.

Accordingly we recommend that a series of motions, each setting out one of the seven options we have identified, be moved successively in each House notwithstanding the normal practice in regard to questions.

José Reinaldo Carvalho (*)

There are many lessons to be drawn from the 11th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum, which took place from December 2 to 4 in Antigua, Guatemala, with the participation of more than 100 political parties and social organisations from 43 countries of all continents. Brazil was represented by the PT ("Labour Party"), PPS ("Socialist Popular Party"), PCdoB and UJS ("Socialist Youth Union"). Important communist parties that are governing their countries, such as the Communist Party of Cuba, the Communist Party of China, the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Workers’ Party of Korea, and also distinguished forces of the international communist movement, such as the communist parties of Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, among others, sent delegations. Progressive forces of Latin America, with a great importance in political life – such as the Uruguayan Broad Front, the Party of the Democratic Revolution from Mexico and the organisations form Central America that were engaged in armed struggles during the 70s, 80s and 90s of the previous century and now are political parties with remarkable institutional, administrative and social action, such as the Sandinista National Liberation Front from Nicaragua, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front from El Salvador, and the Guatemalan Revolutionary National Unity, the host party – all shone in the constellation of left-wing and centre-left forces gathered in Antigua. Palestine, Iraq, Libya, Colombia and Venezuela also sent representatives of their progressive and revolutionary forces.

The Meeting, held due to the organisational talent, dedication and abnegation of militants and leaders of the URNG, took the character of a great, diversified and pluralist congress of progressive parties and social organisations. During three days the various matters of the political and social life that ail Latin American peoples, and all relations they have with those that ail humankind, were passionately debated in thematic groups and plenary sessions: youth, gender, regional integration, migrations, racism, social movements and its connections with political parties, the parliamentary performance of left-wing parties and their strategies and tactics to reach power.

The present situation of political and social effervescence and crisis in Latin America constituted the background of the Meeting. The paradigmatic Argentinean crisis was a recurrent issue. It constituted the definitive demonstration of the crisis in the neo-liberal global strategy and the so-called single thought. This crisis exemplifies to peoples from Latin America and the whole world how subordination to the present policies of the world powers leads to catastrophes and that the solutions for the grievous problems of the peoples and nations must be looked after in diametrically opposing ways. The crisis in the Andean region, namely in Colombia and Venezuela, was targeted by the analyses carried out by the participants of the 11th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum. While the Meeting touched on the progress in political and social life, it also highlighted the growth of the struggles against the FTAA and the electoral victories, such as the surprising campaign of Evo Morales in Bolivia and the triumphs of Lúcio Gutiérrez in Ecuador and Lula in Brazil.

Lula’s victory was the most debated issue. Excepting some lapses of memory, all speakers saluted in some fashion the victory of the Brazilian popular leader as the victory of all Latin American peoples. Those who highlighted the international importance of the fact were not few. In the opportunities we had, we tried to explain the phenomenon according to the particular view of the Brazilian communists: the neo-liberal model collapsed in Brazil, the policies of "Professor" Cardoso failed, the IMF’s economic recipe (that they still want to impose on us, despite the political change) proved to be not viable, the awareness of the Brazilian people won since it developed and took a leap, constituting a new political thought of a politically and ideologically matured left, which now is able to develop a single-front broad policy while taking into account the national idiosyncrasies and the enormous cracks in the political system of the dominant classes, gathering the support that was decisive in achieving this result. The Latin American left rejoiced with the historical victory of the Brazilian people.

But the Forum’s highest point, with which I finish these notes, was its indefectible anti-imperialism. Despite nuances regarding approaches and manners, the struggle against US imperialism is the mark that remained the norm of the debates. The single-sided and hegemonic policy of US imperialism was acidly criticised now that it threatens the world with another war of aggression. Strong positions were defended against the FTAA and for a new kind of Pan-American integration. Clear statements were made in solidarity with the Palestinian, Iraqi and all peoples menaced by the war-mongering policy of Bush. A loud outcry of struggle for peace and against the imperialist war was uttered in Antigua.

----------------

(*) Journalist. Vice-president of Communist Party of Brazil – PCdoB, responsible for International Relations